swansont

"By adding heat to the system, engineers were able to combine carbon dioxide with hydrogen, split from water, to produce a few grams of liquid fuel that the authors say could work in a jet engine. " Sooooo where does that heat come from? How are they splitting the hydrogen? The article is rather coy about the conservation of energy issues with this.

It's not elaborate. There are principle like this that are simple ways of summarizing how particles behave under a set of conditions. Light and the principle of least time (Fermat's principle), which is a truth about the path light will take, without discussing the particulars of indices of refraction. Related to the principle of least action for mechanics. Don't anthropomorphize the particles. They hate that.

The center of mass of the panel itself should be the center of the panel, if it's flat. It should be simple geometry to locate the offset from the center of rotation — r cos(theta) — i.e. (the maximum would be for the panel facing the horizon One solution to keeping the CoM over the rotation axis is using a counterweight. Is the actuator's function to change the angle of the panel?

Not reflection. It's absorption and emission as the electron drops into a different state. You might investigate what is already done, and why that works. MRIs work because it's microwaves and magnetic fields, which can penetrate the skull. PET scans work because the ingested material concentrates in the cells under investigation and the positrons can penetrate the skull.

It is also, as far as I can tell, not spatially-resolved process Agree. There was mention of nanometer scale imaging, and I don't know how you do that with micron wavelength light.

OK, but you didn't say you were doing Raman spectroscopy; how does this give you depth/location information? Reflected or absorbed? MRI and PET don't image the brain? Microscopes give nanoscale resolution? Lasers are not magnetrons. How does the magnetron fit into this scheme? You mentioned power source, which makes no sense.

What causes the different wavelengths to be emitted, for this imaging?

The results that you are describing are those of relativity, which means that it will not support your model Then there’s no way to confirm your model with a clock experiment They aren’t decay events. That’s not how typical Cs atomic clocks using the Ramsey method work. And it’s well-known in the community that no two clocks will remain synchronized. There’s always frequency noise. This is ignored in relativity, though, since you’re looking at an idealized system. In a practical sense, it means your clock stability needs to be sufficient so that the random walk is small compared to the accumulated phase from the dilation. So this is irrelevant to the discussion What is relevant is if you can derive the Lorentz factor for time dilation from quantum theory.

Relativity already predicts this. Can you derive the Lorentz factor for time dilation from quantum theory? Otherwise this path has no substance to it. It’s all hand-waving.

I imagine magnetrons were uses as sources of excitation when better sources we not (yet) available, but a better question might be whether spectroscopy tells you anything interesting, regardless of the source. Why limit your options? Also, using “powered” or “power source” seems wrong in this context.

Yes, because you can’t prove a negative Because this effect does not depend on the details of the clock. You can’t engineer a way to reduce or eliminate the effect And you would be right. It’s not a physical mechanism. Sure he did: c is the same in all inertial frames, and physics is, too. Time dilation and length contraction are consequences of that. But that’s not evidence that supports your idea, since it also supports relativity. You need a prediction that works only for your idea. You should be aware that water clocks were/are actual clocks. Not great ones, in the scheme of things, but people used them to tell time. Like in the Hafele-Keating experiment. Which confirmed relativity. (edit: xpost) Technically not the way they work, but it’s not particularly relevant to the discussion.

If the events are ticks of the clock, I don’t see your point. You get fewer ticks because time slowed down. There’s no physical mechanism in play that could cause this. If you have an alternative model, you need to present it. Your “quantum events” description is far too nebulous to count as a model, and you have presented no evidence to support it.

Yes it is, and impeachment is one thing that can’t be pardoned by the president, so it seems to me that impeaching him for this and (other) federal crimes would be a good idea, just in case he tries to pardon himself. But congress won’t do it at this point. Election tampering is also a state crime, so Georgia can indict and seal the indictment for a couple weeks. And GA and NY officials can wrestle for being first in line to cuff him on the 20th, just after noon.

Yes, that’s a better way of saying it.

You don’t need these nearby to observe time dilation. No events giving rise to decay would be consistent with this. But we do: relativity My objection is to the “relative” part, as you are dismissing relativity. Yes, this is what relativity says. Does length exist without an observable object? Is there a length between two points in unoccupied space? It can be measured. Time is a measurable property of one observable duration with reference to another (clock) Not contentious and has been directly measured. Again, the effect is there in empty space, so no quantum events nearby

You’re describing photons out of phase, which would destructively interfere, so more information about the situation is needed. “Support of momentum law” makes no sense.

Yes, sorry, I thought the “on a scale that might affect the outcome” was understood, since that’s what Trump is alleging. Several examples of republicans committing voter fraud have come to light.

The problem is Trump committing election tampering, not fraud, and as he has no evidence of election fraud being committed, how can he legitimately believe it?

Certain events, then. The half-life laws are a consequence of the randomness. IOW, there are ways to tell if something is random. Not an "interior" pattern, but a pattern nonetheless. That these events are random? Einstein said God does not roll dice, and Bohr told him to stop telling God what to do. Having the old guard not embrace a new paradigm is not is new phenomenon. Hypothetical, since it exists. If it didn't exist, why would we need to invent it? Things would behave differently.

The kinetic energy would be 1/2 mv^2 Mach 8 is 2744 m/s If that's at elevation, yes there will be more energy owing to the potential energy, but it's 2 x 10^6 joules/meter, which is small compared to the KE and, as you say, some will be lost to air resistance 7.5 x 10^11 Joules, or 0.18 kilotons of TNT equivalent, or ~1/83 of the Hiroshima bomb yield

Why? If the mutations are neutral, why would accumulating them be bad? Can you take the next step(s) in figuring this out?

Entropy is mistakes? Black holes have entropy. I believe Phi was commenting on your statement about black holes being portals not being correct. Or at least, not being supported by any evidence.

I see. Yeah, that’s obviously a bug in the forum software

What are these quantum events? How can we detect them? Why does this change while in motion? How does QM determine if you are moving? Is there a quantum state of absolute rest? Relative inertia? I thought this was a QM explanation, not one based on relativity. Physics doesn’t claim that clocks are special, but if you have something that can do measurements at a timing stability of, say, a part in 10^15 that doesn’t use a clock, I’d like to know about it. Time is not claimed to be a substance. Neither is length, for that matter. But time is what gets people all confused. How does QM cause length contraction is another problem to tackle Time is a classical notion; it was a variable long before QM came around.

When I use the quote function on a post I only see the words of the person I’m quoting. What are people doing to quote one person from someone else’s post? Is this a copy-paste issue? Or is this using the “quote multiple posts” function